Tuesday, April 10, 2012

TChris says:This is one of 22 "reviews" Ms. Klausner posted (so far) during the early morning hours of April 10 -- a significant number but one that pales in comparison to the 82 she posted on April 3. The same reviewer posted 211 "reviews" during the month of January, 203 in February, and a similar number in March. That's an average of almost seven books a day, every day of the week, that Ms. Klausner claims to have read and reviewed. Her torrid pace for April, however, exceeds 10 books per day. No wonder her "reviews" are so often laden with factual errors. Each and every book she's reviewed during the last several years she has deemed worthy of four or five stars. Readers should keep these facts in mind as they consider whether to rely upon her opinions.

Hey, Bozos, we know you'd hate to do that, but isn't it time you "clean up your stables"?

Johnny Boy says:I just want to comment on something. I know I'm a tad late, but I figured I need to chime in.

Harriet Klausner, since 1999 or whenever it is she posted her first review, has been deceiving people into thinking she's been reading all of these books. 26,834 books, to be exact. I'm no reader (or I very seldom read, let's put it that way), but even I know that has to be almost scientifically impossible. If she's writing 74 reviews a day, then something is seriously wrong. I've said this before, but I feel the need to reiterate this. Klausner has to be a fake, or perhaps a computer generator. Writing plot summaries of books does not count as a review.

When I review (I review music albums and occasionally singles), I like to look at the quality of the music, the sound quality, and also if the musicians have talent. If I were to start writing like Harriet Klausner, my reviews would consist of: "This album has bass, keyboards, drums, guitar, saxophone, and vocals. Therefore, it comes highly recommended." Do you see how unhelpful that is? It is spectacularly unhelpful, and yet Klausner has been doing it since 1999. Thirteen (13) years. That still staggers me.

Well, recently, Amazon changed the reviews system, and Harriet Klausner got stripped from her title as the #1 reviewer. She's not even in the Top 1000 reviewers anymore. It took the site more than a decade, but justice has finally been served. Klausner's reviews are horrendous at worst and mediocre at best (and that's being VERY generous), and it is about freaking time Amazon did something right and removed this lady from atop the reviewer's throne. This should have been done in 2002, not 2012. But better late than never, as the old saying goes.

Klausner's reviews are sad, pathetic excuses. They're plot summaries. Useless plot summaries that you can 99% of the time find on the backs of books. Despite the fact that Klausner has been "dethroned," she still continues to churn out these useless "reviews" (I also use this word lightly in this scenario) per week by the hundreds (yes, 100s). The computer system that has created Harriet Klausner just does not seem to know when to give up.

Now that her time at #1 has come to an end (and thank goodness for that), I think it's time for Harriet to finally go away. No one really cares about her reviews anymore (not that anyone really did in the first place, except to lash out at what is a horrendous excuse for a reviewer), and so my thinking is, if people stop voting on her reviews and stop reading them, maybe (just ***maybe***) she'll go away. Don't even vote Not Helpful. Let's just try this. Ignore the computer, and maybe it will shut down and go away for good.

Oh boy, wouldn't THAT be nice???

I've ranted for the day. I'm done now.

Needless to say, we agree wholeheartedly, and concur. Good message, Johnny Boy.

Friday, April 6, 2012

Once again Amazon bumped someone off. Anyone remember who and what that was? (Amazon's new fashion is to delete not only the post but also the poster's name, so it's harder to figure out what the reasons for the deletion might have been.)

We had 7 occurrences of one her all time classics: "with a sixteen years old daughter Emma" "sixteen years old Winn" "eleven years old Anna and fifteen years old Luca" (twice in the same sentence yet!) "two years old Lainey" "her six years old son Zack" "seven years old Ciro Lazzari" and "her three years old son Jack"

Surprisingly, I found only a half dozen or so "relish"'s

And, even more surprisingly, only one "over the top of": "Over the top of "Mt. Trashmore""

The readers/fans that shall remain motionless made 5 appearances: one with some "relish" "Still fans will relish" and one "Still erotica fans"

TRUTH, I only found one of your favorites: "The support cast adds humorous New York shtick cynicism" and three of your other favorite "Sub-genre"'s.

Fast-paced was used only 14 times, here we have it used twice in the same sentence: "The fast-paced storyline combines glamour and desire with wrenching crime scenes in a fast-paced global twisting cat and mouse thriller."

7 were "action-packed" and 3 "never slowed down". We even had an “armchair time travelers” along with a new one: “readers fans will enjoy”, come on Hattie, “readers fans”?

“With a sort of Mork in Men In Black lampooning” Now that’s just plain funny!

Last year April, our "Lady of Perpetual Posting" puked out 306 fake reviews and posted them here, that's over 10 books per day that she did not read. Do we have another 300+ month of fake reviews of books she did not read in store for us again this April?

The 27,000th fake review milestone will likely be hit this month (my prediction is 4/24), we'll all have to get out the party hats and celebrate.

In typical HK run-on sentence/bad grammar fraudulent fake review fashion, here is a blurb put together from a few of them: The story line combines a wonderful story line that is fast paced action packed faster than the speed of life over the top of sub-genre fans will relish her seventeen years old daughter that somewhat still fans will root for the police procedural complex urban fantasy cozy that lampoons the soiled dove double dog dare fabulous romantic paranormal police procedural that's faster than a speeding Superman and the strong support cast will roots for the indigenous people that are underdeveloped and interchangeably oversimplified and nonsensical on a tour biting tour that still armchair warriors will feast on and on and on and on and on...

See ya again next month for another recap of fraudulence from The Fraud Known as HK.